You'e absoultely blind if you think candidates run from tax cuts during election years. Even Clinton promised tax cuts..... You couldn't be more wrong if you tried here.
No, but the one that you cited is. I can say the same about you. You responded to my citation of a Time magazine article by simply dismissing it. The point is that I do research for a living (going into three decades), not that I work for LSU. You know nothing about me but are somehow convinced that I'm inexperienced and can't understand research results just because I disagree with you. Actually, you are the one that insisted that man did NOT cause this and have cited exactly ONE discredited report. My assertion is that there is broad scientific consensus on human-induced global warming. It is your contention that has been shot down all over the world. Want some sources? LINK--Science Magazine--The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" LINK--The Earth Insitute at Columbia University "2005 was the warmest year ever recorded, beating the previous record high set in 1998 and continue a general trend of rising temperatures dating back to 1980. In May 2005, scientists concluded the Earth is absorbing more of the sun's energy than is being emitted back into space, disrupting the planet's energy balance and resulting in global warming. Scientists agree the Earth's climate is being directly affected by human activity, and for many people around the world, these changes are having negative effects. Carbon dioxide levels today are nearly 30 percent higher than they were prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution, based on records extending back 650,000 years." LINK --California Academy of Science: Manmade Meltdown New evidence suggests that humans have been raising global temperatures for 8,000 years. Atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane naturally fluctuate, partly because the planet's orbit changes over time, so the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth in a given year is variable. However, recent studies leave no doubt that humans have also had a hand in raising the level of greenhouse gasses and warming up the planet. Air bubbles trapped in ice cores from the Antarctic ice sheet show anomalous increases in carbon dioxide levels beginning about 8,000 years ago - just about the same time that farmlands were replacing forests throughout Europe and Asia. About 3,000 years later, the ice cores reflect a similar anomalous rise in methane levels - this time in tandem with increased emissions from flooded rice fields and soaring numbers of domesticated livestock. Climate change models suggest that a global cooling period should have commenced about 5,000 years ago, but these prehistoric practices were apparently widespread enough to override the predicted ice buildup. Recent industrial emissions of greenhouse gasses have caused rising global temperatures to accelerate in the past fifty years. Experts from the National Climatic Data Center and the National Center for Atmospheric Research calculate that there is a 90 percent chance that the planet's climate will climb between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century because of these human influences. Shall I go on?
red, you like to research, take a look at this report: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
Where have you been? It's pretty widely-noted that today's Republican (aka the 'neo-conservative') is quite liberal relative to the fundamentals of their party. During election time, Republicans want to reach across the lines of their typical voters, feeling assured that they've achieved party loyalty, and into the hearts of Democrats by claiming to be 'compassionate' and diverse. Similarly, Democrats want to appeal to the Republicans, again assuming party loyalty, by appearing 'tougher' and more fiscally responsible. You see, it's all an act to get an edge in the votes. Really, the whole phenomenon is the fundamental basis of politics in general. Appeal to as many as possible to gain more votes. If you feel certain that you'd have universal support within your party, why not try to steal some from the other side? To say that either side doesn't mimmick the other is oblivious. It's the same party, just under two different names.
Well, it points out several interesting things. The cited National Academy of Sciences report was prepared at the behest of the Bush Administration to refute the conclusive IPCC report, but it actually supports it. The article you link to merely states that some of the report's results were misinterpreted by a CNN reporter, which is not surprising. CNN's Michelle Mitchell had stated that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Lindzen objects that the panel was not unanimous in their decisions and that he disagrees with some of it. Fair enough. The title of his article, "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty", is misleading, because as he states in the article "The NAS panel did not address this question." The NAS report neither supports nor endorses the Kyoto treaty because it was not about the Kyoto treaty. The NAS report actually does state unequivocally that current global warming is the result of human activity. Again Dr. Naomi Oreskes says it best. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise". The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" . Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling .
maybe i am misreading, but isnt the whole point of what i linked to to show that the NAS scientists were not actually agreeing on that, and that to say that that would be to speak for all of them and misrepresent them? like i said before, the public likes conclusions. the media likes alarmism. the fellas who dont agree are swept under the rug as everyone wants to continue to claim there is agreement, when there is not. this guy, who was on this NAS panel, specifically says there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise about what causes climate trends. "a fairer view of the science will show that there is still vast amount of uncertainty." you know better than this guy? i dont.
No, they wrote the report and signed it, so it speaks for the entire panel of scientists. He just pointed out that it was technically incorrect for the reporter to say that they were unanimous and in agreement on every point. Collaborative research tends to be this way, of course. You are denying the obvious. There is broad consensus on the subject as evidenced by the authoritative reports I cited above. This does not mean that there are not challengers and dissenters, but they are far from being swept under the rug. Lindzen, for one, was a dissenter that was placed on the NSA panel specifically to question the norm. This is a good for checks and balances but does not indicate that there is widespread dissention with the conclusions of the IPCC, the AAAG, the AMS, the AGU, or the NSA reports on global warming. No, he doesn't say that. He signed the friggin' report. He just states that this specific report was not a unanimous opinion, as the reporter assumed. The study reached the same conclusion as all of the others, despite the presence of doubters on the committee. If you bother to read any of the links I provided, you cannot miss that there is an amazingly broad consensus on global warming. You can't just trumpet one dissenter's opinion and simply ignore the many distinguished voices that are in complete agreement. There is always an element of uncertainty in science. This does not negate the fact that there is an even larger amount of certainty and that the scientific community is in general agreement on this subject. Broad consensus does not require absolute agreement. I realize you don't. But you won't stop arguing anyway. :wink:
right, and on this topic there is a "vast" amount of uncertainty. but that is too frustrating to accept. well, according to red they are in "general agreement". but many of the scientists who are supposed to be agreeing are claiming there is a vast amount of uncertainty. of course we don't listen to those guys. we need to get worried, we need to generate fear. fear is fun! uncertainty is confusing. and the press, needing stories badly, of course they want to sound the alarm. the headline: "this just in, weather changes have been happening forever for reasons not understood!". thats not too interesting. plus of course everyone wants to feel good about themselves for caring about something. the press has to report something, politicians need some problem they can solve better than the current administration. people want something to worry about (peak oil is a good example that applies to you, red). incidentally, penn and teller did a pretty good show on this. not that those guys are scientists, but i do generally agree with how they present things.
Poetry is for pussies????? I know quite a number of rodeo performers who write poetry. Trust me, they are not pussies. What a dumb statement!
don't you think cowboys have enough to deal with lately as far as their reps go? hollywood says they are homos, and now you spreading around how they love poetry.
